More astute readers will recall that only Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral College votes by congressional district. And that's the basis for a plan currently roiling state Republicans.

Here's the text of an e-mail that Leach, D-Montgomery, sent around this morning:

"Ok, this is priceless.

The Pennsylvania Republican Governor is pushing us to switch our system of choosing presidential electoral votes from a winner-take-all system to a by-congressional-district system.

Among other arguments they make ("Those damn Philadelphians vote too much", and "people who lose the elections are unhappy and would prefer to win") they also say that this system more fairly allocates electoral votes in a way that represents the "diversity of opinion" in Pennsylvania.

There is only one state that has employed the "by-congressional-district" system and has actually split its vote. That is Nebraska in 2008 where Obama got one of the state's electoral votes despite McCain winning the state.

Republicans in Nebraska are outraged! They are pushing to return to a winner-take-all-system. In fact, they feel the by-congressional-district is so unfair that the state party has issued a statement (in article pasted below) saying that any Republican that does not vote to return to a winner-take-all system will forfeit all party support in the next election.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with which party benefits from state-to-state. Republicans in Nebraska and Pennsylvania just have a philosophical disagreement about what is and is not fair."

Current Comments

A survey of 977 Nebraska voters conducted on January 26–27, 2011, showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

In a second question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,

16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide);
27% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding electoral votes by congressional district; and
57% favored a national popular vote.
In a third question, 39% of voters think that changing the method by which Nebraska awards its electoral votes should be a high priority for the Nebraska Legislature in 2011, while 61% said that it should not.

The first question was: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

On the first question, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation was 78% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 65% in the First congressional district, 66% in the Second district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 72% in the Third District. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 76% among women and 59% among men. By age, support for a national popular vote, 73% among 18–29 year-olds, 67% among 30–45 year-olds, 65% among 46–65 year-olds, and 69% among those older than 65. By race, support for a national popular vote was 68% among whites and 63% among others.

The second question was: "Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like in Nebraska where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of Nebraska's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?"

* * * *

A survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

NationalPopularVote.com

Posted By: oldgulph | Sep 20, 2011 1:28:28 AM

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere­, would be politicall­y relevant and equal in every presidenti­al election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency­.

Minority party voters in each state and district would have a voice. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

Elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II).

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

Posted By: oldgulph | Sep 20, 2011 1:23:37 AM

I happen to oppose the plan for PA. But Leach is just sore that he went from being potentially relevant in the State House to being permanently irrelevant in the State Senate.

Posted By: John | Sep 19, 2011 4:42:20 PM

The point here is that all states ought to have the same system. I can actually buy the argument that a system of awarding electoral votes by Congressional District would be more fair (of course electing the President by popular vote would be the most fair, but that would go against the mandate of our never-to-be-questioned slave-owning Founding Fathers...). But states should not pick-and-choose based on the particular whims of the current political situation. If Gov. Corbett & Sen. Pileggi are serious about making this change for the good of Pennsylvanians, how about making it effective in 2016? They can then spend the next 5 years trying to convince other states to also make the change.

Posted By: Ray | Sep 19, 2011 3:48:53 PM

Leave A Comment

NOTE: Please express your opinions in a civil and respectful manner. Insensitive, inflammatory and derogatory comments will be removed at our discretion.